Why the Catholic Church Is Wise to Ban Condoms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maranatha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
BlindSheep:
Taking unreasonable risks for the thrill of it is wrong. Our lives do not belong to us, but to God.
Click to expand...
Do your kids ride bikes?
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
They may make transmission of HIV less likely in a specific instance of risky intercourse, but if they make risky intercourse itself more likely, they may contribute to the spread of HIV. Therefore, in one sense they would be “effective” but ultimately, would be counterproductive.
Click to expand...
Well, does that mean they are lying?
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
Would I have my kids vaccinated against HIV? Not if I were given the choice, though as I said, I don’t think I would be.
Do you think it is fair that people who behave responsibly should be put at risk because of the assumption that all people are irresponsible?
Click to expand...
I think one should have a choice in the matter. That’s why I asked about your choice.

Why wouldn’t you let the kid get vaccinated? Could they be vaccinated against smallpox?
 
40.png
Aquarius:
Do your kids ride bikes?
Click to expand...
Whether a risk is “reasonable” or not depends upon the balance of the harm vs. the benefits, don’t you think?
 
40.png
Aquarius:
I think one should have a choice in the matter. That’s why I asked about your choice.

Why wouldn’t you let the kid get vaccinated? Could they be vaccinated against smallpox?
Click to expand...
If given the choice, I would have them vaccinated only against those diseases where the risk of the disease outweighed the risk of the vaccine.
If the risk of the disease depended on behavioral factors (as with HIV and HEP B) I would operate under the assumption that my children would behave responsibly. To do otherwise could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and could, in a worst case scenario, constitute harming a child (through a bad vaccine reaction) who has done nothing wrong on the assumption that they will do the wrong thing, whereas not vaccinating would only fail to decrease the risk inherent in doing the wrong thing, thus leaving the child in control of her risk. Of course I would take into account the risks of contracting these diseases in other ways (not dependant on behavioral factors) but these risks are usually quite small and would probably not outweigh the vaccine risks (if they did, I would get the vaccine for myself and my children).
Of course, my whole line of reasoning rests on the assertion that extramarital sex is wrong, an assumption you may not agree with.
 
In a recent book, Rethinking AIDS Prevention [8], and elsewhere, Dr. Green argues that there is a fundamental difference between fighting AIDS in the West and in Africa. In the West, a risk-reduction model has been followed on the premise that tightly-knit high-risk groups such as homosexuals and drug addicts cannot change their behaviour and that the best way of coping with the disease is by promoting condoms. Outside of high-risk groups in the general population this model is inappropriate – but it was imposed on Africans anyway.
Click to expand...
“What Americans and Europeans forgot when designing these approaches is that African cultures are still largely bound by tradition and religion, and that they have not undergone the general sexual revolution, and certainly not the gay-lesbian revolution, of the West. This should have been Anthropology 101,” Dr. Green wrote last year in a journal article.[9] Westerners have to realise that Africans do not share their horror of “moralising about behaviour”.
Click to expand...
This is from another article from Michael Post editor of the BioEdge an email newsletter on bioethics.

tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=122704X
 
40.png
Aquarius:
Using a condom with a prostitute is doing her a great favor. It reduces the probability she will contract HIV.
Click to expand...
Awful. Just an awful sentiment. If someone is willing to prostitute themselves, does not make it any less abusive. Fornication is an abuse to both parties, denying the true promise and hope in sexuality–love and procreation and denying them the dignity of their chastity.

It’s the distorted sexuality that is the root of the problem and condoms are a symptom of that distortion.
 
Family Values versus Safe Sex by Alfonso L Trujillo
President, Pontifical Council for the Family
December 1, 2003
In connection with these findings presented in the Workshop Summary, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute made a report, “Physicians Groups Charge US Government with Condom Cover-up”, stating that “[g]roups representing over 10,000 doctors have accused the US Government’s *Centers for Disease Control and Prevention *(CDC) of covering up the government’s own research that shows that condoms do not protect individuals from most sexually transmitted diseases”. According to the report, these groups claim that, “…the CDC has systematically hidden and misrepresented vital medical information regarding the ineffectiveness of condoms to prevent the transmission of STDs. The CDC’s refusal to acknowledge clinical research has contributed to the massive STD epidemic”.33
Click to expand...
lifeissues.net/writers/tru/tru_01familysafesex1.html#b6

This article is worth reading, from beginning to end, as it also points out the medical studies, tests and so forth which identified significant problems with condom leakage and failure. Go to article 6 entitled, The Same Concern, From Non-Ecclesiastical Circles.
 
40.png
Rosalinda:
This is from another article from Michael Post editor of the BioEdge an email newsletter on bioethics.

tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=122704X
Click to expand...
I can’t argue with Dr. Green. Hear what he has said elsewhere:
Green supports a comprehensive approach to HIV prevention that includes abstinence, condom use and faithfulness to sexual partners, with the latter likely being the most important, according to Green (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 6/23). According to the Times, Green has said that ]"it is not ‘abstinence only’ or ‘condoms only.’ Both are needed
Click to expand...
.

Kind of like I’ve been saying all along.

Nohome
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
Whether a risk is “reasonable” or not depends upon the balance of the harm vs. the benefits, don’t you think?
Click to expand...
Sure. That makes it subjective. Each person evaluates risk/reward differently.
 
40.png
Nohome:
I can’t argue with Dr. Green. Hear what he has said elsewhere:

Kind of like I’ve been saying all along.

Nohome
Click to expand...
His personal condoning of a package deal approach to managing the HIV/AIDS epidemic does not in any was preclude the effectiveness of abstinence only based programs to stop spread of STD.
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
If given the choice, I would have them vaccinated only against those diseases where the risk of the disease outweighed the risk of the vaccine.
If the risk of the disease depended on behavioral factors (as with HIV and HEP B) I would operate under the assumption that my children would behave responsibly. To do otherwise could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and could, in a worst case scenario, constitute harming a child (through a bad vaccine reaction) who has done nothing wrong on the assumption that they will do the wrong thing, whereas not vaccinating would only fail to decrease the risk inherent in doing the wrong thing, thus leaving the child in control of her risk. Of course I would take into account the risks of contracting these diseases in other ways (not dependant on behavioral factors) but these risks are usually quite small and would probably not outweigh the vaccine risks (if they did, I would get the vaccine for myself and my children).
Of course, my whole line of reasoning rests on the assertion that extramarital sex is wrong, an assumption you may not agree with.
Click to expand...
The argument from risk is different from the argument that extramarital sex is wrong.

Usually people bring up the risk argument when they can’t demonstrate that extramarital sex is wrong without resorting to religion.
 
40.png
MichaelTDoyle:
Awful. Just an awful sentiment. If someone is willing to prostitute themselves, does not make it any less abusive. Fornication is an abuse to both parties, denying the true promise and hope in sexuality–love and procreation and denying them the dignity of their chastity.

It’s the distorted sexuality that is the root of the problem and condoms are a symptom of that distortion.
Click to expand...
Maybe it is abuse. But abuse with a lower probability of HIV is preferable to abuse with a higher probability.
 
40.png
Rosalinda:
Family Values versus Safe Sex by Alfonso L Trujillo
President, Pontifical Council for the Family
December 1, 2003

lifeissues.net/writers/tru/tru_01familysafesex1.html#b6

This article is worth reading, from beginning to end, as it also points out the medical studies, tests and so forth which identified significant problems with condom leakage and failure. Go to article 6 entitled, The Same Concern, From Non-Ecclesiastical Circles.
Click to expand...
I think I’ll trust the CDC before the Catholic Family and Life group.

And we should remember the CDC says the best way to avoid HIV is abstinence and monogamy.
 
What right does the white man have to limit the population of the black man?

What gives the US the right to stick its dirty nose into another country and limit population growth?

If they really cared about the black man in Africa the US would remove the corrupt regimes and prevent genocide.

There would be NO starving childern in affrica.

The US doesn’t care. In fact it doesn’t even care about it own black population.

But alas, they would much rather just sell all their condoms.
Anything to make money even if it contributes indirectly to genocide.
 
The real reason the US Dems are upset with the catholic church is because we succesffully stoped them from making money.

Affrica is a huge market and condoms are really cheep to make and distribute.

The US Dems don’t give a damn about Affrica or the black man for that matter. They only care about their own pocket book.
 
40.png
setter:
His personal condoning of a package deal approach to managing the HIV/AIDS epidemic does not in any was preclude the effectiveness of abstinence only based programs to stop spread of STD.
Click to expand...
Yes, well, this does.
Uganda gained a reputation in the 1990s for its high-level leadership against HIV/AIDS and acceptance of sexually candid HIV-prevention messages. But public health experts and Ugandan AIDS organizations fear that the shift toward abstinence-only programs will reverse this success. Abstinence programs have been used since 1981 in the United States, where they have proven in numerous independent studies to be ineffective and potentially harmful.
Click to expand...
hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/30/uganda10380.htm
Stephen Lewis, the U.N. secretary general’s special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, said fundamentalist Christian ideology was driving Washington’s AIDS assistance program known as PEPFAR with disastrous results, including condom shortages in Uganda.
Click to expand...
msnbc.msn.com/id/9118071
Although educational campaigns promoting abstinence and monogamy may have been effective and contributed to the decline, the study found no evidence that abstinence and monogamy explained the overall decline in HIV prevalence, said the lead author, Dr. Maria J. Wawer of Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in Manhattan.
Click to expand...
The study did show evidence that condom use increased, particularly in non-marital relationships, Wawer said, adding that “condoms are essential” in preventing AIDS.
Click to expand...
aegis.com/news/nyt/2005/NYT050224.html
 
40.png
JamesG:
The US Dems don’t give a damn about Affrica or the black man for that matter. They only care about their own pocket book.
Click to expand...
Give me a break. One need not check political party affiliation to find politicians who only care about their pocket book. Are you suggesting that the Republicans are unconcerned about their bottom line? Even Republicans would laugh at this!

Nohome
 
40.png
Nohome:
Give me a break. One need not check political party affiliation to find politicians who only care about their pocket book. Are you suggesting that the Republicans are unconcerned about their bottom line? Even Republicans would laugh at this!

Nohome
Click to expand...
I’m saying that BOTH of the US parties n most situations only care about their own pocket book. That is the primary motivation.

I have yet to see any true acts of compasion for the people in affrica. All I have seen is the US stick its dirty nose into the afairs of other countries for its own benifit.

Do you have any idea how much money the US Dems lost because they couldn’t sell birth control to a few of the affrican nations ? That is truely all they care about . And that is the true source of their complaints against the church.

The catholic church caused the US a great defeat to their pocket book.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top